Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page shows an archived portion of the discussion at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. Archives help keep pages fast, accessible, and more usable. To see recent or active discussion, or to get a complete index of this discussion's archives, visit Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

Quinn

There's kind of a lot of stuff from D. Michael Quinn in this article. I'm just wondering if you guys think some of it should go away. Cookiecaper 15:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there's more Quinn here than I think is attributed (early involvement with magic is probably relying somewhat on Quinn, but it doesn't say so). If anything, we should add attributions on everything, including Quinn. Keep it though. Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Luke, I have read a few of Quinn's books and find that he belongs within the historical reconstructionist group. He may be fascinating, but he writes not from empircal research, but rather takes interesting research and focuses it through his peronsal lens. Though he is recognized as an excommunicated member of the LDS church, I am not convinced this alone is sufficent to inform readers that his material is POV. If his material is to be retained in its entirety, I believe it will be necessary to make a stronger qualification of Quinn's subjective position. Storm Rider 05:36, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well it's not so much that there's Quinn in here, just that there's a whole lot of him. Nobody uses other sources for anti-claims and his stuff is all throughout here. It kind of takes on his POV, I think. Cookiecaper 05:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've read quite a few Quinn books myself. He's a revisionist, as he comfortably calls himself—he challenges and re-evaluates traditionalist accounts. I also think he clearly has a POV. But it's interesting to note that he and other revisionists (like Dan Vogel, Brent Metcalfe, ect) accuse traditionalist of the same thing: of ignoring contrary evidence and reaching conclusions merely to reconcile a pre-established worldview. No, Quinn is not the best source, but noting that he's excommunicated has two advantages. It's NPOV. It's concise.

One can certainly argue that Quinn is a subtle anti-Mormon, but it's not something that can be merely asserted. Crafting a full and NPOV qualification to Quinn's work would take more care than this, and if I fully support such work.

At any rate, I think cookiecaper is on to something. This article is saturated with Quinn, I think. As I said, the mysticism bit ("others have argued") isn't even sourced, but to my knowledge, the most prominant source for that is Quinn. It doesn't help that the anonymous edits from 64.24.245.x are apparently from a Quinn aficionado who refers only to "Quinn" without even a full name![1] cookiecaper's right. This article needs some other views. Cool Hand Luke 01:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Plural Marriage removal

I don't think it was right for Storm Rider to remove the content about plural marriage. I am reverting. Perhaps it could be stated in a more positive and sympathetic way without removing the factual content? Tom - Talk 03:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

That same information is available under the Plural marriage section. It doesn't need to be there. The page is already a little bit on the big side and repetitive and not stated nicely anyway. It should leave. Cookiecaper 03:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification. Tom - Talk 05:18, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the information is a bit redundant to the rest of the article as well. And I never understood why the whole paragraph was parenthetical—it wasn't that off-topic. Thanks for adding the improved box though, Tom. Cool Hand Luke 05:45, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My intention was that when reading the article in its entirety, the fact that Joseph Smith was a polygamist is very clear. However, to constantly repeat the fact demonstrates redundancy and begins to take on POV. The article should address the Polygamy question, which it does, but it does not need to continue to beat the drum. It would help if prior to all new edits the entire article is reviewed. Without doing so, we will continue to obtain redundant comments...valid, but still redundant. Storm Rider 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)